What the Heck is Happening to Windows?

When critics described Windows 8.1 as a step backwards, I disagreed: Responding to customer complaints is never wrong, I argued, and the new version of the OS made it more acceptable on the many different types of PCs and devices on which Windows now runs. With Update 1, however, I'm beginning to question the validity of this new direction, and am now wondering whether Microsoft has simply fallen into an all-too-familiar trap of trying to please everyone, and creating a product that is ultimately not ideal for anyone.

If you look back over the decades at the many high-level complaints that have been leveled at Windows, one in particular sticks out: Unlike Mac OS, in particular, Windows has always attempted to satisfy every possible customer need, and as such it often provides multiple ways to accomplish the same thing. The result is a messy product, if you will, one that lacks the singular vision that is typically associated with the Mac and Apple's other products.

There's no reason to mince words: This criticism has always been valid. And if you were to simplify the issue down to a sound bite, you might make the following claims: Windows was designed by a committee. The Mac, by contrast, often feels like it was designed by a single person.

I sort of excused this reality in the past by noting that Microsoft with Windows targeted a much bigger and more diverse audience than did Apple with the Mac. (This is what made those "I'm a PC" advertisements seem so appropriate and correct.) But with Apple's iOS now hitting Windows-style usage and audience diversity levels, this excuse is getting harder to sell. Apple, despite its ever-growing iOS audience, has never veered from its singular vision, and that's even more notable when you consider that the creator of that vision, Steve Jobs, passed away over two years ago.

God knows, Microsoft tries. It's a wonderful observer and follower. After watching Windows Vista get mismanaged and then slapped around by Apple, it tapped Steven Sinofsky to reimagine Windows. It's fair to say that this man shares many of the same character traits—and flaws—that defined Steve Jobs. He was belligerent and one-sided, didn't work well with others, had no qualms about tossing out features and technologies that didn't originate with his group, and had absolutely zero respect for customer feedback. Here, finally, was a guy who could push through a Steve Jobs-style, singular product vision.

And he did. Sadly, the result was Windows 8.

The reason this happened is that while Sinofsky had the maniacal power and force of will of a Steve Jobs, he lacked Jobs' best gift: An innate understanding of good design. Windows 8 is not well-designed. It's a mess. But Windows 8 is a bigger problem than that. Windows 8 is a disaster in every sense of the word.

This is not open to debate, is not part of some cute imaginary world where everyone's opinion is equally valid or whatever. Windows 8 is a disaster. Period.

While some Windows backers took a wait-and-see approach and openly criticized me for being honest about this, I had found out from internal sources immediately that the product was doomed from the get-go, feared and ignored by customers, partners and other groups in Microsoft alike. Windows 8 was such a disaster that Steven Sinofsky was ejected from the company and his team of lieutenants was removed from Windows in a cyclone of change that triggered a reorganization of the entire company. Even Sinofsky's benefactor, Microsoft's then-CEO Steve Ballmer, was removed from office. Why did all this happen? Because together, these people set the company and Windows back by years and have perhaps destroyed what was once the most successful software franchise of all time.

The specifics of what's wrong in Windows 8 don't really matter, and of course we've discussed this issue many times. Certainly, some of it isn't even Microsoft's fault: The personal computing market is moving on. But at a high level, the Sinofsky era was of course a reaction to what came before. Likewise, what's happening post-Sinofsky is another reaction, this time to what happened during his tenure. And while Windows 8.1 could be seen as an overdue nod to responding to customer feedback again, what's happened since then, and can be seen more clearly in Windows 8.1 Update 1, is ... troubling.

To be clear, Windows 8.1 Update 1 is not exactly an earth-shattering update, and while it brings many small changes to Windows, it likewise doesn't add any major new features. Windows 7 and 8 represented what the Windows team could deliver in three years, and Windows 8.1 is what they can do in a year. Update 1? That's about three months' worth of work, tops.

The problem with Update 1 isn't in any single small functional addition. It's in the strategic direction that this update implies. You may recall that I previously described Windows 8.1 as an apology, a way to fix Windows as much as possible in one year, and make the Metro environment more hospitable to tablet users (fewer trips to the desktop and Control Panel) and make the desktop more hospitable to traditional PC users (fewer reasons to visit the Metro side of the fence). In that sense, Windows 8.1 is "successful," but only within the confines of the madness of its predecessor. It doesn't do a thing to address the fact that Windows isn't a single OS. It's two of them, mobile and desktop, fused together unnaturally like a Frankenstein's monster.

So what does Update 1 add to the mix? This time around, Microsoft has committed what I consider to be the cardinal sin of Windows: It's a return to that age-old issue where Windows simply grew, spaghetti-like, to accommodate every silly possible need of the system's too diverse user group. Now, there are multiple ways to do different things in Metro, too. This previously consistent environment—like it or loathe it—has finally been put under the committee's knife.

Now, some people will see this as "choice," because these changes—desktop-like context menus in the Start screen, a desktop-like title bar in Metro apps, and so on—will somehow make the system more consistent for them, because they still use traditional PCs. But here's the thing. This mobile environment worked just fine with mouse and keyboard in Windows 8.0 and 8.1, and it was consistent with the touch-based interactions for which the environment was designed. Now? It's a mess.

Windows 8.1 Update 1 again proves that design by committee never works, and that by not strictly adhering to a singular product vision, the solution that is extruded out to customers on the other side is messy, convoluted, and compromised. Say what you will about Sinofsky, but Windows 8 was his baby. I can assure you that no one in Microsoft is particularly eager to claim this mess as their own. And Sinofsky must be beside himself with rage at what they've done to destroy what he created. More isn't always better. Sometimes, it's just ... more.

Ugh.

I do have some advice for the Windows team. And it's as obvious as it is necessary.

I always accepted the messy bits of Windows in the past because the system addressed such a large audience. But given the way things are going, Windows should evolve into a system that is laser targeted to the customers who will in fact continue using it regularly. That's mostly business users, but even when you look at the consumers who will use Windows, that usage is almost entirely productivity related. Windows should focus on that. On getting work done. On an audience of doers. Job one should be productivity.

Everyone likes to compare Apple or the Mac to BMW and, you know what? Fair enough, and if that's true then Windows is obviously GM, the overly-big messy GM of a decade ago. But Microsoft can't afford for Windows to be like GM anymore—just like GM couldn't, for whatever that's worth. Maybe Windows needs to be more like GMC, the part of GM that only makes trucks (and truck-based SUVs). After all, while many people choose to use a truck for basic transportation, they're really designed and optimized for work. You know, as should be Windows.

You can't please everybody, Microsoft. So stop trying. It's time to double down on the people who actually use your products, not some mythical group of consumers who will never stop using their simpler Android and iOS devices just because you wish they would.

Windows, Windows, Windows. It's supposed to be all things to all people. And it just doesn't work anymore. You're right, on the desktop nothing beats Windows. Even on the Server Windows is fine. But when they try to force Windows on to phones and tablets everything starts to fall apart. It isn't suited for mobile devices. It's too big, to bloated for mobile. And it's interface is terrible for mobile, but great for the desktop. So they come out with a new interface that's fine for phones but sucks on a desktop.

JUST STOP THE INSANITY.

You are exactly right. Focus Windows on productivity and the corporate market. If Microsoft feels that they have to get into mobile fine, come out with a mobile OS. But don't throw out the baby with the bath water. Leave the damn desktop alone.

Ugh, Microsoft is stumbling around like a drunken sailor right now. Totally directionless....

I will not engage this argument for long because it's just so futile in discussing things with people who's biases are no doubt set apriori.

"Force Windows on to phones and tablets everything starts to fall apart". Clearly you don't know what you are talking about and have never run Windows Phone 8. The main problem with WP8 is that it lacks a few features and the 8.1 update will resolve a lot of those.

I spend 98% of my time on the desktop of Windows 8.1, yet I have no problems with the idea that if I wanted to I can flip over to metro and play a Netflix movie or use the Metro side as a status screen for when I am away from the computer.

The insanity is the obsessive focus on hatred of the Metro side of the OS. The freaking desktop is fine. Get a life.

I'm sorry, but it's people like you that ruin this for everyone else. Windows 8 ISN'T growing as fast as Windows 7 did, but it IS, in fact, growing. I'm sure we can play various statistical games and each show that the other is wrong. But it's people like you that just infuriate me. You're so flipping stuck in the old world that you can't possibly conceive, much less embrace, a hybrid computing existence while we transition to the environment we will unrelentingly move toward. I don't really CARE if you people don't have touch screens. I don't have them either and yet, magically, I can get a much work done--and in a much more organized manner--as I ever did when my machines ran Windows 7. How is that? Because instead of complaining that they were taking away my buggy whip I examined how I could adapt and best use the hybrid nature of Windows 8. Perhaps what angers me most about all of this is that those who absolutely had no use at all yet for the Metro side of things could easily live on the desktop or, better, just become the next group of "Windows XP zombies" with Windows 7. I do have a number of legacy programs that will never ever see the Metro light of day. But I still keep my desktop absolutely clean. EVERYTHING starts from the Start screen. It's simple to throw my legacy programs on screen 2 while my Metro apps are used on screen 1. And NOT ONE ISSUE with using a mouse and keyboard. But the fact is that it won't be that long at all before you simply will not have machines WITHOUT a touch screen or, probably, voice and gesture control. There will always be a place for some sort of mouse & keyboard analog because of the particular needs of granular control. But there is absolutely no reason why we have to be stagnant or, what I believe is now happening, going backward.

I run Divisional IT at a Research University. We're no IBM.. I've only got ~1500 Laptops and Desktops in the Divison. ;-)
I have yet to receive a request for Windows 8 or 8.1 on a new machine or a re-install. Maybe one slipped by and was handled by my Desktop Support guys but I've still got a good pulse on what the clients want.

What I do hear, regularly, is "please don't install Windows 8 on my computer", "Can I get that with Windows 7", and "can you reinstall that with Windows 7 when it comes in?"

Personally, I favor OS X. I was weaned on school Macs but today it's all about a simple UI with good developer support that get's me BSD Unix under the hood. It's nice to carry around something close in functionality to my Linux servers without having to fight with Linux on my day-to-day laptop.
That doesn't mean I'm not comfortable using and supporting Windows and Windows Server.. but I don't feel as comfortable in it.

I did make an effort to get used to Win8 though. I'm between Windows desktops in the house and I've been getting by with Parallels.
I can say without reservations though.. I really don't like using Windows 8. Even 8.1.. it's still hugely awkward to have Metro intruding on my UI. My dream for 8.1 update 1 would be the ability to disable Metro entirely. I think I could actually deploy it to my users then.

BTW.. the ironic thing is.. I really liked what Microsoft was trying to do with unifying tablets and real personal computers across one flexible OS. It was a great idea.. in theory. It's the execution that was a total failure.

You can see in my whole argument, I barely touch the UI, because it is a moot point all of you obsess about.

> Windows 8 is still in fact growing.

Yeah? The only reason I bought Windows 8 is because I could afford it. Yep, a lot cheaper (14$ download) than that Windows 7 I had before which wasn't licences. Why? Because not everyone can afford buying software like it's grosseries or socks. Well... mostly everyone can't in my country.

The second WIndows 8 I bought is because using Windows 7 it in a small company in a country where you get sent inspectors so often and where a single fine will make you close your business... I had to buy it. And guess what, can't find Windows 7 for new PC's.

> And not due to Microsoft pushing it.

Well, if this is not pushing it, then it is a soft pushing it. It still is PUSHING it, I mean, c'mon, even XP is still usable to people, can't say 7 is ready for the recycle bin ;)

8 wasn't meant to help it's users, just it's maker. All Windows' are made this way. But incidentally 7 as a side effect did help the desktop users. 8 doesn't. Maybe it does for some Nokia users, can't judge that.

> people who do eventually use it LOVE IT!

In spite what Thurrott says about productivity, Ubuntu is my choice for it, so...

I'm stuck with the 8 at home which I only use for playing games, and some as recent as Bioshock don't run good as in the 7. Others like older GTA's even more poorly.

The other PC, for the small company, needs to run antiquated accounting i.e. productivity software. 8 is not for it. 7, is better, 32 bit version even more.

Even the "newer" software which used .Net 1.1 stopped working with the update to 8.1. I had to force it back because M$ deliberatelly obsolete it and blocked it for installment.

Well... I do eventually use it, and DON'T LOVE IT.

> Windows 8 is still in fact growing.

Why? Because of the market reality: can't buy (afford or find) Windows 7.

Butm face it, 7 is the new XP. People got so used to XP, and now the 7 that they will not upgrade, even if MS dropps support for it, even if they can't run new software (they're still stuck to legacy, so moot), and even if they need to "pirate" the 7.

Yeah, I hated 8.x for the longest time. It just felt to me like MS just wasn't listening. I was all set to become a Windows 7 zombie, but then, I decided to actually try to use it. I tried, and I tried, and I tried again. I uninstalled, reinstalled, probably put a lot of strain on this poor old 160GB HDD, but eventually I hit gold. I found way to have my cake and eat it too: Update 1. This fixed many of my concerns with 8.x, and while some remain unaddressed, I have high hopes for 8.2, Update 2, 9, or whatever they decide to call the next batch of changes. I don't have to futz about with Metro unless I want to. And that, I believe, was my original gripe with 8.x - it didn't give me a choice.

I agree completely with your comment. In a year, Windows 8.x/9 will be the best solution for enterprise.

Windows 7 is great on a desktop or laptop system as we have always known them. But mobile is taking over and the perfect solution is to have the same OS on all systems. Pick up and go with a tablet or convertible/hybrid device synced completely with your desktop PC. One could even argue it would be one device docked with local hard storage synced to OneDrive. Web and installed Office applications on both machines with collaboration.

Far from needing to "back away" from the "Metro or Modern" side of the PC, systems could be set up to utilize both in their most useful forms.

And like it or not, there are so many improvements to Windows 8.x under the hood it is almost laughable. Windows 7 is a workhorse, but Windows 8 runs faster, conserves battery, is more secure and has integrated OneDrive and search baked into the system. This is what MS was dinged for not so many years ago with their integration of IE into Windows and their attempts at an active desktop.

I see both sides of the story and its simple. When people are using a desktop they want something like Windows 7, and some people like me like going into Metro every once in a while to play a game or look at the calendar or Netflix...etc. On a tablet people don't want to worry about Desktop, they'd probably be best doing everything in Metro. Windows Phone is awesome, I love it, its easy, elegant and great. Thats why I and others thought that the tablet OS should be Windows Phone instead of RT.

The thing that could be done is if you're using a computer with a mouse and keyboard you boot directly into Desktop and you never have to see...ever...unless you want to. When you have a tablet you never have to see Desktop...unless you have a hybrid machine and want to.

In desktop mode just make it like Windows 7 and perfect the Metro area for touch screen users. Then keep the prime apps coming.

Windows Phone should add a few great enhancements, but all in all its a solid and beautiful OS.

I love the argument that the market has spoken and what it said about windows 8 isn't pretty. The fact remains that windows 8 is growing its market share, even if at a slower rate than its predecessor. It's also worth note that if it were true that the market share were all that mattered... there would be no OSX since it's market share by comparison to windows has always been dismal. It's funny how people leave that detail out in these arguments.

There's a lot more to it than that. Look, while people need to buy computers, they don't need to buy a Windows model. But, even now, most people will do so because they have Windows software, and aren't aware that they can move to something else. Most people habituated themselves to whatever they used first. As that's Windows for most people, they dutifully buy another one when they need a new model. That's why Win 8 numbers are growing. But they're growing slowly, because more people than ever before are finally realizing that they don't have to buy Windows again, and they aren't.

Win 7 grew quickly because of two things. Vista was a mess when it came out, and got a very bad rep, so people avoided it. It also came out at the beginning of the recession. When Win 7 came out the recession was ending, and so people were more willing to spend again, and people who avoided Vista, bought Win 7 machines. So a double whammy was responsible for the quick Win 7 takeup.

But Win 8 has no such advantages. Win 7 is pretty good, and is still fairly new. Why change? Business is upgrading to that, and has no interest in Win 8.

While you, and some other enthusiasts like Win 8, most others don't. You have to understand that, rather than to keep saying how great Win 8 is. You won't convince anyone who isn't already convinced.

Yup! MS keeps riding the wave of assumptions that the name Windows brings with it. When it comes to desktop, it works wonderfully. However, when they release a phone/tablet and say IT'S WINDOWS! Those same assumptions apply, and they're the EXACT opposite one would want on such tiny devices. Complexity is great when people think about their desktop. Complexity is the worst thing when people think about their phone/tablet. That's the main problem: mind conditioning. Azure has become a great cloud platform and I'm pretty convinced had it been named Microsoft Windows Cloud Services it wouldn't have gotten so much traction.

You know, I really hope all those MOD trademark filings indicate some new names... Office Mod, Microsoft Phone (using Mod-OS), Surface (again using Mod-OS)... it would still be windows/metro but with a name that separates these UIs that are supposed to be EASY from the connotations of complexity that Windows carries with it. Businesses and desktop users would use Windows. Tablet/phone users would use Mod. Same thing, different name and adaptive UI, completely different ways of perceiving them in the eyes of consumers. Business wants complex, they get complex. Consumer wants easy, they get easy.

Windows as a brandname:
Microsoft under Ballmer believed the Windows brand lots of marketing power. It didn't: too many people perceive the desktop to be bloated, malware-ridden, and confusing. Consequently, "Windows Phone" would've been better served having a different brand IMHO. Even worse, the poor execution of Metro in Windows 8 now *taints* the excellent implementation of it on Windows Phone.

The only way to have a good brandname is to delight customers everywhere its used, and Windows just isn't there yet. Until then, a common brand just drags down the better products.

Windows as a core OS technology:
This usage is similar to how "Linux kernel" is used sometimes, where it explicitly leaves out desktop environments like Unity. The Windows core, especially the kernel, is extremely good. Anyone who doesn't believe so should use Windows Phone 8 for a while - performance-wise, it completely blows away Android on similar hardware, and just scales down better.

In this usage, Windows everywhere is a *good* thing for Microsoft. Until recently politics ensured there were three separate OS teams: console, phone, and desktop. Now Microsoft can stop having three driver teams, three video teams, etc, and have one shared team instead. It can then use those freed up developers to out-race Apple and Google.

Windows as a UI shell/experience:
Here we see three different Microsofts in Ballmer's era:
1. Windows Phone UI - Nailed it: Metro on Windows Phone is just delightful, and is one of the reasons it rates higher than iPhone and Android on Amazon. And this is not a surprise: that UI effort was apparently led by the guy whose teams created the start menu, Zune UI, and Media Center UI. My only complaint is they really need a TweakUI app for those of us who want to customize it a bit more.

2. Windows Desktop UI - Failed it:
I don't believe there's any intrinsic reason blocking a successful UI that *scales* between keyboard/mouse/touch and between large/medium/small screens: that's the webpage model, and plenty of websites have done it successfully. But you need good designers, and you must take the time to polish the UI until it *shines*. And here we have the fail: if the OSX UI experience wasn't polished enough, Apple would slip; Microsoft's desktop team would blink and instead hit Christmas with an crap product. Even worse, Sinofsky's teams would ignore feedback, thus guaranteeing it. There's no room for arrogance here - if the customer doesn't like it, its just not ready for ship. Don't destroy your brand.

3. Windows Console - Internet model: these guys seem to keep shipping frequent updates, always two steps forward for each step back. So its too early to tell, although they too blew it with XBox One - it wasn't ready in November.

In short, Microsoft's branding strategy was undone by a culture of prioritizing ship dates over polish, fiefdoms over cooperation. That culture is Ballmer's legacy. Until its fixed, the Windows brand will regress to the mean, which is mediocrity.

BaudSp1r,
Nicely written summary of the state of Windows. Combined with Thurrott's "What the Heck is Happening to Windows" gives a nice review of the current situation.
I would add that there is one aspect in addition to desktop, mobile and console that Microsoft must address and unify across their strategy... Cloud.
Apple is attacking these 4 disparate categories carefully, methodically and separately. Microsoft is attacking the 4 categories - but, their results seem less coherent.
Somehow Apple Numbers on iCloud , iTunes on Apple TV, Apple Airport, etc seem not to conflict with each other - yet their design seems unified and somehow helpfully supportive of each other.
I think it is important that Microsoft, Apple and Google remain competitive and drive each other to innovate and deliver excellent solutions at reasonable prices.

I think you - in a way - made your comment not to make much sense. I think Windows being server OS and desktop OS at the same time quite much proves it can be phone OS, tablet OS and TV OS too. The difference between server and desktop to me is much smaller than difference between desktop and touch interfaces. They just need to get some things right first.

Paul has a point that its a bit unsure if their moves with 8.1U1 are right ones. To me the biggest problem is really what they have done with developers. WinRT is confusing to millions of .NET developers when it could have been quite much the same. .NET makes it possible to use the same code across server, desktop, touch devices and web so its insane why they didn't just continue from that. They did something different for WP and wanted to add HTML5 + JS to the mix which doesnt make ANY sense and I don't know anyone who actually use it.

But anyway, I don't think W8 is a bad product or a mistake. Or that Windows everywhere is a mistake. They just sold the idea wrong and made some too easy laughingstocks for haters to ruin the reputation of the OS like they have tried to do with every release starting from Vista. Being able to run mobile apps on PC is great and it would be great to be able to reuse code on all platforms as efficiently as before phone, xbox and touch.

Paul,
well-written and I agree with almost all points you make. My take on Windows 8.1U1 is a frantic rush to please business users and give them at least a compelling reason to move to 8.1 instead of staying on Windows 7 and create a new XP situation in January 2020 when Windows 7 is dying. With the turmoil and mixed messages about selling Win 7 and some OEMs taking up Windows 7 again, Microsoft really needed to get their act together. Three months of googling around to find what customers hate this aimed for the low-hanging fruits to be able to present at least an accepted version of Windows 8.1.
I think it's too late - I reverted back to Win 7 from Win 8.0 on all machines (all desktops and laptops without touch) and never looked back. My Surface Pro is running 8.1 but I seldom use it except when traveling. I see no compelling reasons to start piling up Metro apps bought in the Store. Hopefully we will have moved on to something better in 2020 when it is time to retire Windows 7.

Paul wrote an hysterical post. He just repeats disaster, mess, apple is perfection, but he doesn't give any arguments.

Windows 8.1 update 1 is giving desktop users the possibility to completely ignore the modern UI. And for those desktop users interested in store apps they can integrate them into the desktop experience. The most confusing aspect of Windows 8 was the two different ways to manage apps, as if there were two OSs in the same device. That's gone. Of course Modern UI apps doesn't integrate perfectly in the desktop environment, for some people It's unacceptable, for other is not a problem. You can ignore store apps if you want. Devs can develop apps for the desktop
The desktop is a legacy environment, most people will use touch devices with some level of keyboard and pointer support most of the time the rest of their lives.

Focusing in enterprise workstations doesn't make any sense. People will access enterprise data, apps and services from any device in any place of the world. The platforms that dominates the consumer market will dominate the enterprise market for 99% of the use cases. Companies won't develop different apps for 'consumer' devices and 'enterprise' device.

"The desktop is a legacy environment, most people will use touch devices with some level of keyboard and pointer support most of the time the rest of their lives."

If this is true, what do you reckon Microsoft's chances are of forcing a settled market into switching to its own, poorly supported platform?

Cause that's what this whole mess is all about: Microsoft not being able to accept their being late in the mobile and tablet markets.

Instead of adapting to the realities of these markets and selling software and services that customers actually want, Microsoft have spent the past 4 years trying to leverage their current customer base to gain a foothold in these runaway markets, severely (terminally?) wounding their reputation with the same customers in the process.

In phones it looks really difficult, but in tablets is not that settled.

Windows 8 has many advantages over iOS and Android which are phone OSs scaled to run in bigger screens. Mouse and keyboard support, big screen support, multi screen support, peripherals. The Modern UI is attractive and works really well in tablets. Android's adoption is lower in tablets and the quality of the apps is not that good.
As you say MS can benefit from supporting legacy desktop apps, especially in the enterprise.

Windows 8 is just a year and a few months old. The first 8-inch Windows 8 tablet under $300 was released the last quarter. It's too soon to declare defeat.
I think MS could reach a 10% of market share with the surface mini, a sub $200 model, probably announced in build and a sub $100 model without desktop, running Modern UI Office.

At 60+ | 34 | 4 currently, I don't think the tablets are in any danger of turning out much different than the mobile handsets market.

I'm sure a $200 Surface mini would help some, but how would Microsoft make money on that device? Even a Nexus 7 is $229, the small Surface would need at least twice the flash memory because of its out-sized OS, and needs to cover OS and Office licensing revenue.

Totally agree. The pity is all they had to do was provide two ever present 'start' buttons, one multicolored window that took one to a Windows 7 desktop, one blue window button that took one to the metro interface. I would have been totally happy with that AND would have checked out and learned about the Metro screen just because it was there and one button click away. Why not? AS LONG AS IT WAS OPTIONAL.

I'm not sure why you don't see the argument in your own post. "Windows 8.1 update is giving desktop users the possibility to completely ignore the modern UI."

Ok, if that is such an immediate priority that the very first major update is to enable the user to undo what people initially hated about Win8, how do you not see that as a gigantic problem and a clear indication of its failure? (so far, but I do love a comeback) Who would want to purchase Win8 just so they can roll it back to act more like Win7? I have Win8 on a portable and frankly I am still looking forward to making the most out of it and discovering what more it can do for me, discovering the hidden gems etc even though I'm not a fan yet.. but that level of excitement about learning new tech even if the first impression is bad makes me seem like a masochist to non-techie friends and they represent the lion's share of the market, not me.

Integration and ecosystem will be absolutely key in terms of who wins the next round of tech wars. Apple has also tried to "iOSify" the Mac in recent years, bring the two experiences closer together with launchpad and natural scrolling, (not natural to me) iCloud syncing, compatible cross platform+web productivity apps etc. but a major way the 2 strategies diverge is the optional component. Launchpad (pages of icon grids of apps like iOS) wasn't being shoved in anyone's face, it's just there as an icon to click if you like it. Existing Mac users were unaffected by default. That choice on whether to embrace the change was absent in 8.0, and is exactly what you highlight in that brief sentence I cherrypicked. The absence like Paul wrote; seems likely to be a direct result of ignoring customer feedback. People may grow to enjoy metro, but make it a choice that is off by default, something new and fun to go into and not a drastic forced change run from.

Microsoft literally has the opposite problem here from Apple but they're trying some of the same tricks anyway. Microsoft is trying to get its large desktop user base to try its mobile OS, Apple is trying to get its large mobile user base to try their desktop OS. Obviously the tech strategies differ vastly as well with a unified OS vs two very distinct OSes but I think that giving some mobile users the *option* to feel a little more at home is a way better design problem to face than having to mishmash your bestselling product to try and get people more comfortable with your mobile offerings. See the business problem there too? Apple doesn't have to retweak its bestselling products, it's tweaking the big dollar upsell, no real gamble there... Microsoft on the other hand did have to gamble to have a shot at mobile and an ecosystem, they really had no choice. It just seems like the wrong people were in charge.

Also, the desktop is not a legacy environment and will never go away although I know many disagree. People will always want their 20 something inch screens and a desk to sit at to get real work done. Computing on cots, at parks and beaches makes for great commercials but most consumers have no need of mobile computing that can't be done on a smartphone in a pinch (email, web, social media etc). Many do, but most don't. The fact that the tech world is moving to the cloud ironically diminishes the need for the devices themselves to be mobile; it's your data that will be mobile.

The huge error in wanting to devise a compelling reason for businesses (pronounced "enterprise") to move to Windows 8 is that it clearly didn't work with Windows XP. There are SO many businesses and individuals that stayed with Windows XP. You can add to that the fact that most of the enterprise has only just finished migrating to Windows 7. How on earth would you come up with a valid reason to do it again so soon? LET THEM BE. Continue to morph Windows 8 moving AWAY from the traditional desktop. In other words, DE-EMPHASIZE the desktop, but leave it with all it's current capability. It's absolutely a mistake to drag the desktop vestiges to Metro. The right choice was to create the Metro approach to all the things we could do on the desktop and make sure they "talk to each other" seamlessly. Those of us who do still have legacy programs can continue to run them as before, but de-emphasizing the desktop means developers need to develop touch-based versions. I will NEVER go back to Windows 7 and I frankly look down my nose at those who insist on staying behind.

And there is your answer, isn't it? You can look down on Windows 7 users all you like - developers are looking down on you. Developers were perfectly happy working in a very robust, very secure and very well-developed "eco-system". Now Microsoft is telling them what they suddenly "need to do". Well, most people just flipped them a bird and continued on their merry way developing for a platform that is on 90% of all computers. Some new products are picked up by the market like there's no tomorrow (the iPhone - brand new eco-system, picked up by users and developers alike, grew like mushrooms after the rain). Windows 8 - a WHOLE other story. And you can try to convince everybody that it's totally OK to click on those iPhone-sized VGA squares on your 26" non-touch Windows 8 screen with a mouse: the market will have none of it.

"You can look down on Windows 7 users all you like - developers are looking down on you. Developers were perfectly happy working in a very robust, very secure and very well-developed "eco-system". Now Microsoft is telling them what they suddenly "need to do"."

This is simply not true. B2B-devs continue to work with .NET and other desktop applications just like until now but consumer application business has been dying very fast. Name even one successful new consumer desktop application from the past 3 years? I cant get even a free app to my mind which would have been successful. And because nobody buys software for Windows anymore, devs have moved to other platforms to make consumer apps. MS was right they NEED a new platform which attracts consumers and devs. So far they have quite much failed but the need is still there.

Amen! Ever since I've seen the newest screenshots for Update 1, I've been thinking the same thing. What on Earth is MS doing? I get that they want to fuse desktop/metro, but what they've done looks AWFUL. Like really, incredibly bad. Not even a bad design student would approve this. Was an ugly black bar on top the best option? Who thought the taskbar would look good on top of start screen/metro apps? Seriously, WHAT?

I'm trying to calm my fears thinking, Windows 9 will redesign the desktop, metrofy it if you will, giving desktop users the desktop they want but with a metro, modern look and then things will look more consistent. But that in no way excuses the mess that Update 1 looks like it's going to be. If they wanted to fuse things by W9, then wait for that release and don't stick together 2 things that look completely different and un-combinable.

I get the end goal if indeed it's what I picture (kind of like what that Jay Machalani kid designed to solve the dual OS thing), or if as MS has suggested there's different front ends for different users... but the mashing UIs together needs to stop. Sure, fuse stuff, but then modernize the desktop look with metro design guidelines.

YES! Windows 8 was a decent consumer tablet OS, but as a developer it was a mess. I had to go dust off my COM books to be able to work with WinRT, and it was painful. The fact that the Windows team rejected .NET and its massive developer following seemed insane to me. The "not invented here" syndrome was clear.

But, there's a bigger issue than just the APIs. Communication. Remember when Microsoft killed WPF? They stopped developing it and moved the team working on it to other projects. I heard it from Scott Gu's blog, but Microsoft never communicated to the developer community. Then they killed off LINQ to SQL. Then they killed off XNA Studio. Then they just sort of stopped working on Expression Studio. Rumors started to circulate that they were dropping support for .NET. Again, the company was silent on the issue for more than a year. It was crazy; the rumor train was picking up steam, and Microsoft did nothing to stop it.

I got off the train. It was painful, but I dropped Visual Studio. I just couldn't take it anymore. TechNet was cancelled, then it wasn't, then it was again. Rumors circulated that MSDN was going to suffer the same fate. No communication from Microsoft. Windows Home Server was cancelled. Media Center stopped receiving updates. Windows 8 would not ship with DVD functionality. On this issue, Microsoft offered some reasoning: because tablets don't have optical drives.

I swear, it was as though Microsoft decided to start alienating the very developers that made the company a success. The hostility and silence fanned the rumor flames, and I was finally forced to make a decision. Windows 8 was not designed for content producers, it was designed for content consumers. Microsoft was fickle in which tools got cancelled and which tools survived. They were becoming openly hostile to their developers. Meanwhile, an increasing amount of developer mindshare and interest was being placed in open source projects and new languages. Google opened up Go. Python 3 finally got enough library support that I could start taking advantage of its benefits without suffering the drawbacks. The mobile space was growing exponentially, and many of my customers were now on iOS or Android. I learned Objective-C and brushed up on Java. I feel like a developer again, and I'm back in the passion and excitement that drew me to software development in the first place.

I keep looking back though. I grew up with Windows, spending countless hours in books by Petzold and Richter. I'm sad to see it go, but the reality is setting in. Windows is irrelevant in the modern age of computing. Microsoft hurt itself critically with the decision to spend years not communicating with its developers, authors, and community.

While I don't think it quite so bad as you decribe (at least not yet), I agree with your core point: Microsoft is *horrible* when it comes to communication with developers.
Microsoft has a nasty history of announcing new developer platforms as "the next great thing" and then abandoning them after some time. Though WPF has hardly been abandoned - 4.5 was a good update and VS is heavily based on it, so it will probably hang around. Other platforms haven't been so lucky, though...
I think one of the problems with Windows 8 is that developers simply don't trust Microsoft to keep around WinRT and develop it.
What Windows really needs is a clean, modern API. *One* API for everything! .NET has the potential, but Sinofsky threw that out. WinRT has the potential for being this, but then they messed it up by forcing WinRT apps to be full-screen only.

The Build conference will tell a lot this year and btw, MSFT hasn't dropped .net or has plans for it. We also know devs don't care for winJS based on store stats, and C# remains strong and growing with revs of store apps.

So yes, the message has been confusing for devs but you're calling technologies dead before Microsoft, and that's just misleading.

This! I was in the midst of learning C# and silverlight, and loving it when Silverlight was deprecated. Then I got excited about WP7's adoption of Silverlight. The WP7 developer experience was top notch, until WP8 ruined it. Then I heard rumors that C# was falling out of favor, and I was done. Not that C++ is a bad way to go, but they need to provide their devs a consistent message and a clear path forward. On the other side of the fence folks who learned Objective C have had a stable environment and skill set for 14 years or so, and an ever growing audience for their work. Folks in the open source world don't have to worry about a single person, someone like Sinofsky, coming in and flushing everything down the toilet.

Disagree on most things here. What I do agree with is the fact that they should be focusing on adding features as opposed to increasing usability with each update. 8.1 isn't even close to a disaster, but it does need to get better.

Windows 8 isn't a disaster? Search twitter for words like "Windows 8 laptop" or "Windows 8 computer" and you will find a lot of comments from users complaining. Here are some twitter comments from frustrated users this morning:

Ok I absolutely hate Windows 8. I want to throw my Lenovo laptop out of the window.

It''s now fully certain: my next laptop will be a Mac. Haunted by my experience helping my Mum out with her Windows 8 monstrosity last night

About to throw my windows 8 laptop through my window

Not sure if it is because of my inability or Windows 8 usability... it took me 5 minutes to figure out so called "My Computer" on it!

Windows 8's trajectory was set as I see it when three things happened at launch. First, there was insufficient instructions/discovery baked into the product for the new facet of the UI. Second, customer feedback was ignored and boot to desktop was removed from the preview product. Third, a bridge of sorts from prior product history was destroyed by not including a full start button menu. There are other issues, but I believe those three were critical non-forced errors that set up Windows 8 for difficulty at launch.

Yes, Win8 is a Janus faced thing and at the end of the day I am fine with that. There is no unified windows experience without Metro/Live Tiles across all platforms. There is no possibility of a unified "Store" with write once publish everywhere without the Metro Store.

So 8.1 update 1 allows for mouse users to have another type of control over live tiles and applications, why is that so irritating? Has touch control for live tiles and applications been removed and is no longer accessible for those with a touchscreen monitor, that is unlikely. Yes, it is likely true that Apple has been more successful at creating beautifully designed products than Microsoft, yet why should having multiple ways of addressing issues imply that Microsoft needs to change their strategy for Windows 8 and their entire unified platform trajectory over this issue?

I think it is an overreaction and is throwing the baby out with the bath water.

The problem is that THERE WAS NOTHING WRONG WITH THE MOUSE & KEYBOARD INTERFACE. It works exactly as I'd hoped it would. I was angry that with Windows 8 that the mouse DIDN'T act like my finger. With Windows 8.1 most of that was finally instituted, and so I work with the mouse and keyboard very smoothly and it makes sense. And it makes moving to a touch screen much less of a jolt. The way they work on the desktop for those few legacy programs I still have hasn't changed. I don't need OR want the desktop concepts brought over to the Metro side. I want to see development pushed as hard as possible to negate any need for the legacy. Update 1 is a step backward from 8.1.

Forcing a mouse to replicate touch gestures was a mistake. Can't tell you how many non powerusers on a laptop are lost in Metro. There's no obvious way to close an application for example.

If no showed you, who would think that you need to left drag down from the top to bottom without someone letting you know? Now when you show people how Win 8 works on a tablet, they then get why the mouse gestures are as they are.

Granted I've not used Update 1, but it seems the changes being made will make the environment more suited to non-touch environments. It sounds like Win 8.1 Update 1 is what Win 8 should have been on day 1.It's a dilution of what the original vision was, but that vision was not based in reality.

These two pieces are not mutually exclusive. and I'm not entirely sure I've done a 36 degree change, let alone a 180. My comments about Windows 8 being a disaster relate to its reception. The first line of that quoted article noted that Windows 8 was a mess. And it is.

"The first line of that quoted article noted that Windows 8 was a mess."

Disingenuous qualifier when the rest of the article was rah rah W8.

"By melding Metro to the desktop, Microsoft ensured that hundreds of millions of people—not thousands, not millions, but several hundreds of millions of people—would be using this system within the year."

"Should the new stuff—Metro—take off, you can expect Microsoft to drop the desktop like it's suffering from leprosy."

I knew it was going to be a disaster straight off when I learned Ms was not only doing away with the MUCH BELOVED W7 interface, but also removing code to make it hard for a third party to provide one to serve their 'bigger picture'. That's hubris writ large. Microsoft and you.

A hybrid requiring you to use both at the same time is too much, but two separate OS for two separate solutions for separate problems would've been better. Sure, some integration (i.e. shared storage, same file manager, etc) would be nice and reduce redundancy, but this idea of having to switch back and forth to do tasks is ridiculous.

'Windows' is entirely salvageable.

For 'Windows 9' just graft two OS together.

1. A desktop-only OS that is basically a Windows 7 that has the refinements of the Windows 8 desktop. All the back-end stuff, e.g. better memory usage, are much appreciated. So keep improving on that, e.g. resolution scaling, easier UI, etc. Market it as the "better than ever desktop!"

2. As a discrete OS that can be enabled by pressing the Windows hardware button, have an OS that is basically a tablet-centric Windows Phone OS. Sure, some elements of Windows 8/RT should continue, e.g. Charms, bezel gestures, etc. However, make this new OS powerful, make effective use of Win32 and try enticing developers of legacy applications to bring their stuff over as new Metro apps. If Windows Phone apps were to operate well on the tablet (with the right scaling), the app issue wouldn't be an issue, but having more doesn't hurt.

3. If need be, allow for some integration between the two OS. For example, a shared file manager, some power-user settings enabling the Charms menu from desktop,

1) totally unnecessary. Nobody is buying desktop OS systems anymore and those that are, are happy with windows 7. You don't make a better version of DOS any more than you make a better version of windows 7. It's a mature product that has reached its inevitable end of life.

2) Based on the reception of windows phone, nobody wants this brand new OS. Win32 apps that don't run on desktop? What dos that even mean? How will you convince some ERP app developer to target a touch OS that requires you to basically re-write the UI for touch when nobody bought it? It would be easier to take your existing win32 app for windows, and just make a touch friendly theme. At least there would be an install base of 1billion users. Instead of none.

3) what? Integration? How can you "integrate" two systems that you basically said shouldn't combine? You're just re-creating windows 8 in a more chaotic way that has ever been though of. And for this, I must give you praise.

Better is a perception. Many don't think it's better. Different yes, better no. Now obviously they made something better if you all you use is the desktop but how many hundreds of millions would have rather MS spend the time making the desktop software better then the refocusing of time spend making a touch interface. Now they are spending another year reversing everything. That is a few years of wasted time while Google Chrome and OSX is getting that much better. If HTML Apps ever get good the Windows team will be looking around wondering what happened.

What I Use

Like many, I was hoping to see a new Lumia flagship before the end of 2014, and while I was pleasantly surprised in some ways by both the Lumia 735 and 830, neither offers the level of performance or best-in-market camera quality I had come to expected from Microsoft/Nokia's high-end devices. So I pulled the trigger on an unlocked Windows Phone flagship that will hopefully take me through at least the first half of this year. Or until Microsoft gets off its low-end fixation and satisfies the needs of its biggest fans....More

It's been a while since the last What I Use, but there haven't been many major changes since late last year: Surface Pro 3 has become my go-to travel companion, I've added a third cellphone line for testing Windows Phone, Android and iPhone side-by-side, and have rotated through some new tablets and other devices. We've also switched from FIOS to Comcast and added to our set-top box collection....More